4.6 Article

Assessment of Condyle and Glenoid Fossa Morphology Using CBCT in South-East Asians

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121682

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. High Impact Research Grant by Ministry of Education Malaysia [UM.C/HIR/MOHE/DENT/19]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Proper imaging allows practitioners to evaluate an asymptomatic tempormandibular joint (TMJ) for potential degenerative changes prior to surgical and orthodontic treatment. The recently developed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows measurement of TMJ bony structures with high accuracy. A study was undertaken to determine the morphology, and its variations, of the mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa among Malay and Chinese Malaysians. Methods CBCT was used to assess 200 joints in 100 subjects (mean age, 30.5 years). i-CAT CBCT software and The Mimics 16.0 software were employed to measure the volume, metrical size, position of each condyle sample and the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa (RGF). Results No significant gender differences were noted in thickness of the RGF and condylar length; however condylar volume, width, height and the joint spaces were significantly greater among males. With regards to comparison of both TMJs, the means of condylar volume, width and length of the right TMJ were significantly higher, while the means of the left condylar height and thickness of RGF were higher. When comparing the condylar measurements and the thickness of RGF between the two ethnic groups, we found no significant difference for all measurements with exception of condylar height, which is higher among Chinese. Conclusion The similarity in measurements for Malays and Chinese may be due to their common origin. This information can be clinically useful in establishing the diagnostic criteria for condylar volume, metrical size, and position in the Malaysian East Asians population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available